← The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
BONUS: Verdict with Ted Cruz - Tyranny of Judges—Lawfare Explodes through Nationwide Injunctions, plus ANOTHER Pro-Hamas Radical has his Visa Revoked
00:33:54
Loading summary
Transcript37 lines
- [00:01]
A
Good Monday morning. Welcome. It is VERDICT with Senator Ted Cruz. Ben Ferguson with you as always. And Senator, we've got a lot to talk about on today's show, including nationwide injunctions against Donald Trump.
- [00:15]
B
Well, this is the latest evolution of lawfare and the plan from the radical left, the plan from Democrat state attorneys general. The plan from left wing activist groups is sue, sue, sue and go to left wing activist judges, particularly the ones that Joe Biden and Barack Obama put on the courts and use them to try to shut down the entirety of the Trump agenda. It's not going to succeed and it is unprecedented. We're going to do a deep dive and explain what's going on and how it is so far out of step from what any other president has faced. We're also going to talk about the fact that yet another anti American, anti Israel radical has had his student visa revoked. The Trump administration, President Trump is serious that if you are an enemy of America, they are going to remove you from this country. You do not have an entitlement to have a student visa. And to be here and to threaten other students, to threaten violence. We're going to break that down as well.
- [01:13]
A
Yeah, it really is shocking. We're going to dive into all that in just a moment. Want to talk to you real quick, though, about the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews and the work that they're doing and the help that is needed for the people in Israel. After more than a year of war, terror and pain in Israel, the need for security essentials and support for the first responders is still critical. Even in times of ceasefire. Israel must be prepared for the next attack, wherever it may come from. As Israel is surrounded by enemies on all sides. That is where you come in. And the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is working on the ground to continue to support those that are in need. The people of Israel with life saving. Security essentials are so important right now. And your gift will help save lives by providing bomb shelters, armored security vehicles and armored ambulances, firefighting equipment, flak jackets and bulletproof vests and so much more. Your generous donation today will help ensure the people of Israel are safe and secure in the days to come. So give a gift to bless Israel and her people by visiting support IFCJ.org that's one word, support IFCJ.org or call to donate now 888-488-IFCJ. That's 888-488 IFCJ 888-488-4325 or supportifcj.org center. So let's remind people of how we got to the point where this is like the new phase of lawfare. Democrats weaponized our government and the court system and the DOJ when they were in charge, when they were in the White House, to go after Donald Trump, even raiding his home in Mar a Lago. But now that he's the president again, the tactic has changed, but the outcome they're hoping is still going to be, in essence, the same, which is to stop Donald Trump at all costs.
- [03:18]
B
Well, the left is willing to abuse the legal system to try to subvert democracy. Understand, the four times Trump was indicted, that was all about stopping democracy. This is while Democrats were strutting around like peacocks, claiming to be defending democracy. But the reason they brought those indictments is they were terrified the voters were gonna do what they, in fact did, which was reelect Donald Trump. And Democrats wanted to stop the voters from being able to do that. Right now, the voters have voted for President Trump. The voters have voted for a Republican Senate, for a Republican House. And the left, they don't care. They're angry. They're angry at the voters. And so they're going to the courts to try to prevent the president and the Congress from following through on the mandate from the voters. Now, let me lay out some numbers to give you just sort of a level of comparison. In the entirety of. Of the George W. Bush administration, two terms, the Barack Obama administration, two terms, and the Joe Biden administration, how many times do you think there have been nationwide injunctions issued since 2001?
- [04:31]
A
I'm going to go, like, zero to one.
- [04:33]
B
No, no, there have been more than that. There have been 32. 32 against Bush, Obama, and Biden. Now, how many nationwide injunctions do you think there have been in the first two months of the Trump presidency?
- [04:48]
A
I'm gonna not even try to guess because I know I'm gonna be wrong.
- [04:52]
B
37.
- [04:53]
A
Wow. So we've already outnumbered all those other, like, presidencies combined, in essence.
- [04:59]
B
So in two months, we've had more nationwide injunctions than eight years of Bush, eight years of Barack Obama, and four years of Joe Biden. Now, that, in and of itself, both of those are a huge shift from what it's been historically. Now, in the entire 20th century, how many nationwide injunctions do you think there were?
- [05:20]
A
No clue.
- [05:21]
B
27.
- [05:22]
A
Wow.
- [05:23]
B
So in 100 years, there were 27. Then in 20 years of Bush, Obama, and Biden, there were 32. And now in two months, there have been 37. This is a dramatic Shift and look. Let's go back to the history before we had a constitution, before we had our legal system. We had the British, the common law, and in English equity, which is before we had the founding of the United States, you couldn't have injunctions against the Crown. A judge could not enjoin the Crown because the Chancellor was part of the Crown. It was the same authority. And that continued for the first 150 years of the United States. Now, what happened? It used to be that there was an explosion of executive powers in the New Deal, and that led to a lot of injunctions. But those were injunctions that only restricted the government's actions with respect to the parties to the case. Now, all right, let me ask you something, Ben. One of the two of us has a law degree. Let me ask a simple question. What do you think an injunction is?
- [06:40]
A
An injunction is where a court steps in and says, you can't do that. We are stopping you from doing what you said you were going to do.
- [06:48]
B
So that's actually. That is quite good. An injunction is ordering someone either to do something or not to do something. But it is an order from the court for someone to comply with its order. And that is in distinction to an order for damages. So you think about a civil suit. If I run over your cat and you sue me, the court can say, all right, pay Ben $1,000 for his cat. That would be an award in damages. An injunction historically has been with respect to, to the parties of the case. So, for example, if, if I keep running over your cats. If you have 10 cats and I run over a cat a week, that's.
- [07:38]
A
A. I have way too many one liners. Keep going. I don't want to. You're a cat guy. I got to be careful here.
- [07:46]
B
No, I'm a daughter guy. Let's be clear. So. So I do have three cats, but that's because I have two daughters. That in particular, I have my eldest daughter. So she has three cats. And I love my daughters. And so we have three cats in our home. You're a boy, dad. And so cats are not a part of your life.
- [08:04]
A
Yes. Thank you. And it's one of the best blessings I've ever had from them. Keep going.
- [08:11]
B
Well, an injunction could be, let's say a court might order me to not drive my car within 500 yards of your house. That would be an injunction against the parties of the case. Now, what is different? And by the way. So, for example. And you would have those injunctions against the government. But again, they were limited to the party. So, for example, there were 1600 injunctions issued against the enforcement of one statutory provision, which was the processing tax in the Agricultural Adjustment Act. But those were each dealing with individual parties. So you had a party who brought a lawsuit and said, imposing this statutory provision, this processing tax on me is contrary to law. And 1600 times judges agreed and ordered the government, don't enforce the law with respect to Ben. But just because you got an injunction saying, don't enforce that law with respect to you doesn't mean that I was protected by it. And if I wanted to fight it, I had to go to court too. So that used to be the way it would happen. And then there were, there were judicial reforms in 1937 that Congress took a unusual mechanism, which is a three judge district court. So ordinarily in the federal courts, you have district judges, single district judges, then you have courts of appeals, then you have the U.S. supreme Court. Well, Congress created this weird hybrid that was a three judge district court. So it was three different judges, but they were a district court. And if you were seeking injunctions against a federal statute, you had to go to a three judge district court. And then you had a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. So it skipped, it skipped the courts of appeals altogether. However, that ended in 1976, and that ended in significant part because the Supreme Court, their caseload was growing dramatically because of that. And so now just about every lawsuit starts in a federal district court, if you're in the federal system, then goes to a federal courts of appeals, and then the Supreme Court has discretionary review. They don't have to hear it. They can. That shift. That shift meant the mechanism of a three judge district court was no longer there to limit how often an injunction would be given. And then it has been really, it's been the activist judges that Obama and Biden had put on the courts that has led to this explosion of nationwide injunctions. It's one thing to say this party in front of me, I'm issuing an injunction concerning the government's conduct about Ben. It's another thing to say, I'm enjoining the government. You can't do X against any person in the United States of America. That is a dramatic expansion in the authority claimed by one single judge.
- [11:30]
A
So you look at this expansion and it's very clear that this is now war, and it's war that's been declared by these judges. Then what is the remedy here? We've heard about the idea of impeachment of judges. We've heard that this is one of those moments where it's in essence unprecedented, the number of judges that are trying to have nationwide power instead of and really overstepping. What is the strategy here and what does that look like to fight back? Because it's very frustrating. If you're a voter and you voted for Donald Trump's agenda, he wins. The majority of Americans support the agenda. And now you see these judges who were in many cases elected by no one, who are now saying, no, no, no, we can trump Donald Trump in the entire country with one ruling.
- [12:20]
B
Well, to be clear, the judges were not in many cases elected by no one, and they were in every single case elected by no one. The mechanism that every one of these judges became a judge is they were appointed by the president, whoever the President was at the time, and they were confirmed by the United States Senate. And so no federal judge is elected. There are a number of checks and balances on judges. One check and balance is impeachment. However, impeachment, unfortunately, is not going to be effective against this abuse of power. And I'll tell you why. Even if so, impeachment would take. It actually operates very much the same way as impeachment operates against the President or against an executive officer, which is the House impeaches, and it takes only a majority in the House. So conceivably, if all the Republicans joined together, they could impeach one of these judges. Now, impeaching, however, is not removing the judge. It, it, it is the equivalent of bringing charges. It is the equivalent of indicting, like a grand jury indicts, which is to bring criminal charges against someone. Impeaching is the same thing. And a majority of the House can impeach any judge if the House chose to do so and every Republican stood together, they could impeach a judge. But the chances that any of these judges would be removed for issuing these nationwide injunctions are 0.00%. Now, why is that? The reason is because for the remedy that under the Constitution, the impeachment trial occurs in the Senate. And in order to convict, whether it's the president or a cabinet member or a federal Judge, you need 2/3 of the Senate. Now, we do not have 67 Republicans in the Senate. We only have 53. That means we would need at least 14 Democrats. And that's assuming every Republican stood together. The chances of 14 Democrats voting to convict any of these radical left wing judges for issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump are zero. And understand why the Democrats in the Senate hate Trump. These are the same people that sat there and refused to applaud for the President refused to applaud for the mothers of women raped and murdered by illegal immigrant criminals. These are the same Democrats that refused to applaud for a 13 year old kid fighting to overcome brain cancer. The Democrats are not, they're cheering on these injunctions. They want more lawlessness. And so impeachment is not going to be effective. Now. Secondly, another remedy is that Congress can restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts. And Congress has broad authority to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Actually Congress could abolish the district courts. There's nothing in the Constitution that creates district courts. The only court created in the Constitution is the Supreme Court of the United States. And Congress created the lower courts, the district courts and the courts of appeals to process the volume of cases. But Congress has broad authority to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But again, to exercise that authority in the Senate, you would have to overcome the filibuster, which means you would need 60 votes. We have 53 Republicans. The chances of any Senate Democrats voting to limit the jurisdiction of federal judges to issue nationwide injunction, if it's not zero, it's damn close to zero. So those remedies are quite limited. What does that mean? The remedies are. The remedies are, number one, sunshine, drawing attention to it. And listen, I am right. I am the chairman of the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Federal Courts Oversight Agency Action and Federal Rights. And so I am going to be chairing hearings, focusing on this, focusing on remedies and one remedy to consider. Should we return to a system where you have a three judge district court to consider challenges to the constitutionality of federal statutes? I think there's a lot to be said for returning to that now. Again, I expect Democrats to oppose that, but I think focusing on it, discussing it, shining a light on it is important to counteract lawfare. And then I think the real remedy is nominating and confirming good principled judges to the federal courts, to the district courts, to the courts of appeals, to the Supreme Court and then reversing these injunctions on appeal. The legal process that's going to take the Supreme Court stepping up. I don't know if they're going to do so. There are opportunities right now, multiple opportunities right now, but the most likely mechanism to rein in this abuse is going to be appellate review because the Senate Democrats will oppose just about anything else.
- [17:16]
A
So when you look at this and there's just a frustration, and the frustration is how are they getting away with this? And is this going to be what it's going to be like for the next four years? And how do we make sure that this doesn't continue on? And why is it that they don't have to play by the same rules? Like, it seems like it's just lawfare run amok and every time the American people stand up. So there's a genuine frustration here, and I hear what you're saying, but for people that would say, well, is there any other option, like, how do we win? And yet we still lose.
- [17:51]
B
Well, look, there was a recent article in the Harvard Law Review by a professor named Samuel Bray, and he surveyed every nationwide injunction issued from 1963 to 2023. So 60 years in that period, 127 injunctions nationwide injunctions were issued. Just over half of them were issued against Donald Trump during his first term. And if you break it down, 64 were issued against Trump. 12 were issued against Obama, 14 were issued against Biden. So, so those are the numbers for the first term. And then as I said, in the first two months, we've already had 37. So the numbers are, are, are dramatic. Now, here's an interesting stat from Professor Bray's article. Of the 64 nationwide injunctions issued against Trump policies in the first term, how many of them do you think were issued by judges appointed by a Republican?
- [18:53]
A
Oh, gosh, I'm gonna say not as many as the Democrats. But I could be wrong because there's been some Republican judges have shocked all of us recently.
- [19:00]
B
Well, that's true, but, but, but here the numbers are pretty encouraging. Of the 64 nationwide injunctions issued against Trump policies, only five were issued by judges appointed by a Republican. Which means that 92.2% of injunctions issued against President Trump in the first term against his policies were issued by judges put on the court by a Democrat, 92%. And the pattern is very simple. They're going and they're forum shopping. They're going and they're looking for friendly judges. They're going and looking for radicals who will, who hate the president and who will issue injunctions trying to fight back. Now, the fact that they're forum shopping, it's frustrating. But there's a longer term remedy and a shorter term remedy. The longer term remedy is put more good judges on the courts, and the shorter term memory remedy is appeals and hopefully getting the court of appeals to reverse it. And for example, one case that's going on right now is a case called Trump vs Casa. And in January, President Trump issued an Executive order revoking birthright citizenship for illegal aliens and those in the country temporarily. Now, the legality of that order is contested. People disagree on that and that that is going to be litigated. Well, three different district courts issued preliminary injunctions in response. Now, where were those courts? One was in Seattle, one was in Maryland, one was in Massachusetts. So there's a reason they're going to blue states and they're finding really left wing judges. The Supreme Court has a chance to address the issue of nationwide injunctions. And on March 13, the acting solicitor General of the United States, Sarah Harris, asked the Supreme Court to partially stay the preliminary injunctions. And she argued the nationwide injunctions were overbroad. She asked for them to be limited to the plaintiffs in each case or at most the residents of the states challenging the order. So, so it should not be nationwide. It should only apply to, to, to those litigating. And Chief Justice Roberts asked for a response to the Solicitor general's request by April 4. So this is being litigated right now. Now, it's possible the Supreme Court will decide it on its emergency docket, which is the docket where you get emergency appeals from injunctions, or it could wait for full merits briefing, and that could take months or even years. But these cases could provide a mechanism, and I hope they do provide a mechanism to limit and rein in these nationwide injunctions that are clearly being abused.
- [21:59]
A
So let me ask you one other question on this, just layman's terms here. If there is a loss by a judge who does one of these injunctions, does that then have precedent over other judges around the country? Or can other judges then just say, well, I'm going to take up the torch and buy more time and be an activist as well?
- [22:19]
B
Yeah, no, it can definitely be the latter. And so now it depends. It depends where the loss occurs. So if a district judge issues an injunction and it gets appealed to the court of Appeals and the court of appeals reverses that injunction, that reversal binds all the district judges in that circuit. So there are circuits all over the country. So, for example, Texas is in the fifth Circuit, and the fifth Circuit governs only those states that are in the fifth Circuit. On the other hand, if the case goes up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court issues a ruling that precedent binds federal judges across the country. So the real answer, hopefully, is to get this to the Supreme Court and get a good Supreme Court ruling limiting the power of judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This is clearly something that is being abused and it is crying out for the Supreme Court to rein it in.
- [23:11]
A
So do you think that in the near future there's a what are the odds this can go to the Supreme Court and that this can at least have some sort of, like, precedent on the country so the President can do his job?
- [23:22]
B
Look, it can go to the Supreme Court. It is at the Supreme Court right now. The question is, are there five justices willing to rein it in? And we have seen in some of these early cases, sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes the answer is no. And so it's gonna come down to Chief Justice Roberts, it's gonna come down to Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. We'll see how they rule. I feel very confident that Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are more than ready to rein in the abuse of nationwide injunctions. But I don't know if there are five justices or not.
- [24:03]
A
Senator, I want to move to the other story that you mentioned earlier. And this goes in the category of promises made, promises kept. For Donald Trump, a another pro Hamas protester is in serious trouble after his actions on a college campus. This is making liberal heads explode, but this is exactly what the President said he was going to do, and he's making good on that promise yet again.
- [24:29]
B
Well, and this is something we discussed in the podcast you and I did at CPAC when we interviewed Pam Bondi and we talked about the fact that the Trump administration is going to go after these radical, anti Semitic, anti American, anti Israel protesters. And if you threaten violence against fellow students or if you are attacking America, you have no entitlement to be allowed into this country. And it's interesting, you're seeing Democrats who, who, who, who are, have suddenly discovered free speech. Mind you, when it comes to American speaking, they don't give a about free speech. When it comes to big Tech censoring you, they don't care about free speech. American citizens have no First Amendment rights in the Democrats bizarre lexicon. But if you are a vicious antisemite, if you hate America, if you hate Israel, and, and you're not an American, well, then suddenly they think you're protected. And it is insane. So the latest radical who had his visa revoked is a student at Cornell, and he's an individual named Momoto Tal. Now, Momoto Tal, according to the Washington Free Beacon, is a graduate student who has called for the destruction of the United States, has celebrated the October 7 attacks by Hamas, and has said that he takes his, quote, cue from the armed resistance in Palestine. Now, who is Mama Delta? He is a British and Gambian dual national, so he's not an American. And he began studying in Cornell on Twitter in 2022 on an F1 student visa. That student visa has been revoked. Good. And Tall received an email from the Department of justice that said, ICE invites Mr. Tall and his counsel to appear in person at the HSI office in Syracuse at a mutually agreeable time for personal service of the notice to appear and for Mr. Tal to surrender to ICE custody. And of course, what did Tal do? He engaged in lawfare and went and filed a lawsuit seeking to block it. Now, what has Tal said? Tal has said, number one, he's called on fellow student protesters to take their cues from the armed resistance in Palestine. Armed, by the way, not just resistance. Armed resistance. He has also said, quote, we are in solidarity with the armed resistance in Palestine. From the river to the sea. He also said just. Just after October 7th, hours after he said, quote, the dialect demands that whenever, wherever you have oppression, you will find those who are fighting against it. Glory to the resistance. Now, the dialect. Look, this guy is a communist. He's a Marxist. We talked about how cultural Marxism. They divide the world into oppressors and victims and they actively cheer on the violent revolution of the so called victims against the so called oppressors. Now, this is hours after October 7th. This is as women and little girls are being raped, as 1200 civilians are being murdered. And here is what he's saying. The dialect demands that wherever you have oppression, you will find those who are fighting against it. Glory to the resistance. That's not all he said when he applied for his student visa. He wrote, quote, and this is on Twitter, the end of the U.S. empire in our lifetime. Inshallah. Months later, the idiots in the Biden administration gave him his student visa. And he wrote, student visa issued. We are going to America, baby. Alhamdulillah. I don't know what that means, but. But I'm guessing it is not nice. Shortly thereafter, he tweeted, my hatred of the US Empire knows no bound wallahi. Again, I don't know what that means, but I'm. I'm guessing again, it. It is celebrating against America. Hit one other thing he posted, quote, when the enemy is US Imperialism, then absolutely anyone the US calls an enemy is my friend. Let me be clear. This anti American, antisemitic radical who hates America needs to get the hell out of our country. He has no entitlement to be here and we have no obligation. We have no legal obligation, we have no constitutional obligation, and we Certainly have no moral obligation to, to say, hey, people who hate America, people who say, quote, anyone who calls the US an enemy is my friend. You know what, if that's true, get your ass out of this country. We don't need you here threatening Americans.
- [29:32]
A
It really is about threatening Americans and threatening kids on college campuses. And we've seen antisemitism, for example, that has just skyrocketed on college campuses. And a lot of this is, is well organized. We continue to see that a lot of these agitators and protesters are acting in groups and pre planning this around the country. And that has to be very concerning, I think, not only for college students, but especially for students that are Jewish, but really concerning for, for I think everyday Americans understand that we've been allowing these people in and this is what.
- [30:08]
B
They'Re doing and understand the threats. Let me read you another tweet that he sent. Quote, we are actually living in an effing alternative reality. Although he did not abbreviate effing Zionists living comfortably in the US And Zionist Jewish students at Ivy League institutions are claiming to be unsafe, scared, and somehow everyone is calling for their genocide, whilst in 4K we are witnessing a genocide of the Palestinian people. And many of these same folks who claim to feel scared are cheering on the actions of the IOF bffr. I don't know what that means. Every single Zionist is a sick, sick individual and there can be no path forward except for the complete eradication of Zionism materially and mentally. And then he tweets a little bit later, zionists are indeed the chosen people, chosen for hell. Now understand one game that antisemites play, which is many times they use the word Zionist when what they mean is Jew and they just think it's like, oh, I'm pretending to be slightly less bigoted by calling it Zionists. Look, they consider. And he actually at one point says Zionist slash Jewish students. This is an anti Semite who hates Jews and who is calling for the complete eradication of Zionism, by which he means the complete eradication of Jews. And he says they are the chosen people, they are chosen for hell. This is a bigot who hates America. And you know what, what, what, what was happening after the Trump administration moved to deport this? Radical leftists were protesting in support of him. And by the way, have you heard a single Democrat in the Senate speak out in favor of revoking his visa?
- [32:19]
A
No.
- [32:20]
B
You had left wing activists on Cornell protesting his deportation on Thursday and they were chanting hands off Momadoo. Waving signs opposing mass deportation. Listen, any reporter, every reporter ought to ask the Democrats, do you believe we have to give student visas to people who say they're enemies of America and hate America? It's. There's no legal basis for that. And I have yet to see a Democrat explain why they cheer on pro Hamas radicals. But I gotta say, let's say you're a moderate Democrat but, but not swept up in the, in the sort of Trump derangement syndrome anger. You gotta ask why Washington Democrats, when they look at October 7th, when they look at the radicals on campuses, why the Democrats say we stand with Hamas and we stand with the pro Hamas protesters. That's gotta make you wonder what the heck has happened to the Democrat Party.
- [33:26]
A
All right, don't forget, we do the show on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. So hit that subscribe or that auto download button wherever you're listening. And if you'll help us grow by sharing this podcast anywhere you are on social media, a lot of you have been doing that. We want to say thank you. So if you're on Facebook or X or Instagram, wherever you are, true social, share this this episode by hitting that little forward arrow and it'll show up and help reach new people and the center and I will see you back here on Wednesday morning.